Technology

Why would some class-member retailers complain about a $7.2 billion settlement? It’s the question many are asking after a few retail trade associations and a couple vocal big-box stores urged their fellow merchants to object to the largest antitrust settlement in the history of the United States. The deal both sides agreed to in July essentially ended the seven-year battle between retailers and the major credit card networks over interchange rates. That settlement is now up for preliminary approval by a federal court, whose decision a few retailers seem eager to influence by mounting a public relations campaign against the settlement.

On October 7th, the eyes of many in the Americas were set on Venezuela. The reason? A presidential race that pitted one of the most phenomenal politicos our country has seen - Hugo Chavez - against a rather unprepared and naïve opponent - Henrique Capriles. For the record, I was not among the crowd of wishful believers in a possible victory for the opposition. Having shadowed the previous presidential candidate for the opposition in 2006, and having witnessed the obscene way in which all the resources and power of the State is used to favour the incumbent, I was expecting a Chavez victory, and wrote as much, repeatedly.

But imagine my surprise this morning, when I read an op-ed here, from Smartmatic's CEO, Antonio Mugica, praising his own company as a beacon of transparency, and extolling the democratic virtues of Venezuela's electoral system. Since I have been following the meteoric growth of Smartmatic since 2004, and have written thousands of words about its opaque ownership structure and business practices, I nearly chocked upon reading the brazen lies of Mr Mugica.

It was a result that might predictably raise skeptical eyebrows among many Americans. The recent reelection of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez came amidst a polarized political atmosphere and resulted in a victory for a man whose relationship with the United States has been contentious, to say the least.
 
Americans need only remember their own systemic misadventures in Florida in 2000 to reflect on how vulnerable the election process can be to either intentional manipulation or chaotic breakdown.

You get directions on your smartphone, buy a new shirt on your smart TV and connect with friends on your tablet — the Internet has opened up a whole new world of possibilities, but it can also put your privacy at risk.
 
The headlines these days are full of data breaches, cases of website operators not following existing law and examples of operators discovering creative and sometimes reckless ways to use your personal information.
 
To me, privacy is as important in the 21st century as it was in the 18th century, when our country was founded. If our forefathers knew what the Internet and modern technology would be like today, they would have put a right to privacy explicitly in the Constitution. 
 
People want their privacy protected — just ask them.

America depends on functioning and secure telecommunications networks. These networks are our nation's backbone for essential communications, and support many aspects of the American marketplace - including the government, state and local entities, law enforcement, critical infrastructure partners, businesses, and private citizens.

These networks hold sensitive and private information, and they are proven targets for foreign governments or other entities attempting to commit economic espionage, steal trade secrets, or access government information in an attempt to gain a strategic advantage over the United States.

Money and politics have always gone hand in hand. But this year, we are witnessing the first presidential election in which big corporations can contribute unlimited funds to media campaigns that directly support or attack candidates. In this brave new world, big money donors are coloring voters’ views of candidates which can make or break political careers at an unprecedented scale. The influence of big money interests continues once candidates are elected, with all of the access money can buy.
 
We must work to fix the massive structural issues that have allowed big money to distort our political landscape. But in the meantime, we also need to find ways to level the playing field for everyone. And that means protecting today’s greatest equalizer: the Internet.

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s Investigative Report, which was released on Monday, October 8, 2012, is unprecedented in terms of its blatant accusations against ZTE and Huawei and labeling these companies a security threat to the United States. The report accuses these companies of flagrantly acting unlawful, being uncooperative with investigators, stating its close association with the Chinese government and noting its potential involvement in corporate espionage. Basically these two companies are being accused of breaking the law and a subsequent cover-up.

When it comes to the future of electronic commerce, consumer trust and online privacy are “trending topics” that Americans care very deeply about.
 
Today, an estimated 250 million people in the United States use the Internet. And last year, e-commerce in the United States topped $200 billion for the first time. But lurking online are hackers, cyber thieves, and even organized crime rings.
 
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade – and as someone who is also deeply involved in both online privacy issues and consumer protection – I’m very concerned that e-commerce will cease to grow and flourish in the years ahead if Americans lose faith in their ability to be protected from online predators, jeopardizing future innovation as well as our nation’s fragile economic recovery.
 
One important tool in combating cross-border fraud, spam, and spyware is the U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006, which is set to expire next year.

Phil Bond's September 27 op-ed posted on The Hill's Congress Blog, Small businesses are not tax collectors, paints a misleading picture of e-fairness legislation pending before Congress. His claim that the Marketplace Equity Act in the House and Marketplace Fairness Act in the Senate are "fundamentally flawed and anti-small business" is just plain false. Similarly, his assertion that these bills would require "everyone, regardless of size, to collect sales tax" is disingenuous. As Mr. Bond well knows, both bills contain a small-seller exception that would exempt small businesses from collecting sales tax. 



Most of us could identify things about competitive markets we find “unfair.”  I know I could. I wish that woman on eBay who keeps outbidding me for antique telephones would just go away. And I wish the Inn at Little Washington wouldn’t charge so much for its excellent dinners.

Most of us don’t think government needs to stamp out these perfectly legitimate business practices. But the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has authority from Congress to stamp out “unfair methods of competition.” And what is “unfair” is whatever a majority of commissioners say it is. Their current target, according to recent press reports, is Google.